Journal of Library Administration, 2007, Vol. 46, No. 2, p. 27-54.

ISSN: 1540-3564(Print) 0193-0826 (online)

doi: 10.1300/J111v46n02_04

http://www.routledge.com/

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/01930826.asp

http://www.informaworld.com/10.1300/J111v46n02_04

© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group

Shaping Our Space: Envisioning the New Research Library

Joseph J. Branin

SUMMARY. Academic librarians are designing new spaces in their libraries, in some cases through the re-

design and renovation of existing facilities, and in rarer cases, through the opportunity to design an entirely

new building. At the Ohio State University, the hundred year old, central research library on campus is

undergoing a major, $100 million transformation that involves elements of restoration, gutting, tear down,

and new building. What are the architectural and library programmatic directions that are guiding this

project and other space design projects in research libraries today? How much space should be devoted to

print collections and services, and how much space should be devoted to digital services, information

commons, and other new demands on library space? The answers are to be found through an exploration of

emerging library practices of "content management" and "learning space design" that must be linked to the

aesthetics and functionality of effective architecture.

CONTEXT: THE WILLIAM OXLEY THOMPSON MEMORIAL LIBRARY AT THE OHIO

STATE UNIVERSITY

The Ohio State University (OSU) has the 18th largest collection volume count among

research libraries in North America.1 With a print collection approaching six million volumes, a

significant online information service, and a total staff of 405, this large, public, research library

system serves a population of 50,000 students and 27,000 faculty and staff. The physical plant of

the library system is moderately decentralized for a large research library, with twenty facilities

on the main campus and six regional campus libraries in the central region of the State. On the

main campus in Columbus, Ohio, the library facilities range greatly in age and size, from the

historic Orton Hall Library built in 1893 now housing a geology collection of 97,000 volumes

(Figure 1), to a twelve year old consolidated Physical Sciences and Engineering Library of

385,000 volumes that is open seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day (Figure 2), to a brand

new, design award-winning Architecture Library of 45,000 volumes2 (Figure 3).

There is also a high-density book storage facility on the edge of campus that houses

approximately three million less-frequently used items from the Libraries' collections. This

facility, which is open seven days a week with three delivery services a day to central campus

library facilities, is modular in design and has two storage modules in operation and almost full

to capacity, but with potential for three more modules to be built, each capable of holding about

1.5 million volumes (Figure 4).

At the very center of the University's Columbus campus is the William Oxley Thompson

Memorial Library, more simply called the "Main Library" or the "Thompson Library" (Figures 5

and 6).

It is the largest single library in the OSU system by facility size, housing humanities

collections and several special collections along with the preservation and central public,

technical, and administrative services units of the library system. The Thompson Library

provides accommodations for approximately two million volumes of collection, one hundred and

seventy-five staff, and nine hundred user seats.

FIGURE 1. Orton Hall at Ohio State University

Used with permission.

FIGURE 2. Science and Engineering Library at Ohio State University

Used with permission.

The facility was built over the last century in three phases from east to west: the original building

opened in 1913 (Figure 7), the central book stack tower in 1952 (Figure 8), and the western

addition in 1977 (Figure 9). All told, the building has about three hundred thousand gross square

feet of space.

FIGURE 3. Knowlton School of Architecture at Ohio State University

Used with permission.

FIGURE 4. Book Depository at Ohio State University

Used with permission.

While serving many generations of students and faculty well and becoming over the last

century a familiar landmark building on campus, the Thompson Library started to draw criticism

from users in the I 980s and 1990s for its inadequate space, convoluted design, and declining

infrastructure, furnishings, and upkeep. A clear example of this decline can be seen in the before

and after images of the Thompson Library's East Reading Room.

FIGURE 5. Thompson Library on the Ohio State University Oval

FIGURE 6. William Oxley Thompson Memorial Library at Ohio State University

Used with permission.

FIGURE 7. Thompson Library, Original Building, 1910-1913, Allen & Collins Architects

Used with permission.

The most inspiring interior space in the original 1913 building, the east reading room was two

stories high with a vaulted ceiling, oak bookcases and tables, and windows overlooking the

campus's bucolic Oval (Figure 10). A student describing the East Reading Room (referred to as

the "Reference Hall") in its first year of operation in 1913 wrote in the Ohio State University

Monthly:

To return to school one rainy morning and enter the white corridor all alight with soft

radiance, to mount the broad main stair was in itself an experience unreal Then at length

to see the quiet grandeur of the vast Reference Hall, high windows to the east, chaste

whiteness of the walls, and the high curve of vaulted arches overhead-this was the climax

of impressiveness.3

In 1965 this beautiful room was subdivided horizontally to create two one-story reading rooms

with more floor space devoted to book stacks. Unfortunately the east reading rooms lost all their

charm to clutter and overcrowding (Figure 11).

FIGURE 8. First Addition to Thompson Library, Stack Tower and Two Wings, 1948-1952, Howard Dwight Smith,

University Architect

Used with permission.

FIGURE 9. Second Addition to Thompson Library, 1975-1977, Lorenz, Williams, Lively and Likens Architects

Used with permission.

FIGURE 10. East Reading Room at Ohio State University, 1913

Used with permission.

This example, by the way, points to an all too common problem in research libraries in

the second half of the twentieth century that Scott Bennett identified in his study Libraries

Designed for Learning. According to Bennett, "Library after library has sacrificed reader accom-

modations to the imperatives of shelving. The crowding out of readers by reading material is one

of the most common and disturbing ironies in library space planning."4 This was certainly the

case in the Thompson Library at Ohio State.

By the late 1990s the facility situation in Thompson Library was becoming intolerable. In 1998 a

University faculty committee issued a scathing report calling for a general and massive overall of

the Thompson Library facility.5 With a new University President and a new University Librarian

coming onboard shortly after the report, the renovation of the Thompson Library became a real

University priority in 2000, appropriately at the beginning of the 21st century. As the new

University President, Brit Kirwan, stated in his memoir of his Ohio State University years,

When I arrived at Ohio State [in 1998], I saw an impressive library structure and visited

it. I was positively stunned by how depressing and dilapidated and unimpressive a place

it was, so incompatible with our aspirations. You can stand at the library and look at the

renovated football stadium and new basketball arena. I asked myself, how can I be part

of a university where this happens? For substantive and symbolic reasons, we had to act,

and I told the senate that I would consider it a failure if when I leave, we haven't

developed the funding for the library renovation.6

FIGURE 11. East Reading Room, Upper Level at Ohio State University, post 1965

Used with permission.

Planning for the major renovation of the Thompson Library began in earnest in 2000.

First there was a two-year feasibility study conducted by the architectural firms of Shepley

Bulfinch Richardson and Abbot and URS Corporation. After reviewing the feasibility options,

the University decided on an ambitious plan costing $100 million, with $70 million coming from

State capital funds and $30 million from private fund raising. A three-year design phase came

next, lead by the architectural firms of Gund Partnership and Acock Associates. It was during

this phase that the University decided to stay within the basic footprint of the existing building,

keeping the 1913 original building and the 1952 book stacks tower, but removing the eastern

wings added in 1952, and tearing down the 1977 second addition and rebuilding this section with

a new western front. Total space for the building would remain almost the same, with renovated

building growing by only 8,000 square feet to 308,000 gross square feet. Also, the project would

follow a one-phase construction strategy, meaning the building would be completely vacated and

given over to construction during the actual rebuilding period scheduled for 2006 to 2009.

Throughout the feasibility study and the design phase, librarians at the University, as well

as many administrators, faculty, and students, worked closely with the project architects

particularly on programmatic issues. How were research libraries changing? How would the use

of space in the renovated building affect other libraries and other units on campus? What did

users of the library want in their re-made library? Was this an opportunity to reorganize

collections and services of the entire library system? How was new information technology

affecting the use of space in libraries? How best to answer these questions for the Thompson

Library Renovation project, or for any other significant library space design project, occupies the

rest of this paper.

CHALLENGE: BUILDING OR REBUILDING A RESEARCH LIBRARY IN A CHANGING

TECHNOLOGY AND HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

In any library space design project today, certain basic challenges must be faced and met.

These include:

1. financial challenges,

2. architectural design challenges,

3. the impact of changing information technology on library services and space needs,

4. multiple constituents' differing library needs and perceptions of what the "library"

should be, and

5. the effect of new learning and research patterns at the University on library services

and space.

Although all these challenges can be difficult and complex, the more factual or explicit

ones, such as financial and architectural challenges, tend to be easier to uncover and express, if

not overcome. New buildings, renovations, or remodelings are often constrained or partly de-

fined by the site, by the existing architecture, and certainly by the level of funding available. The

budget and architecture for a project should, of course, respond to the more tacit programmatic

challenges of information technology demands and user needs, but in the end, dollars, real estate,

steel, and concrete do put hard and limiting definitions on any space design project.

For librarians, the tacit programmatic challenges in library space design are the most

interesting and most important. Architects, contractors, and funders want to know what to build

and how much it will cost, and they should ask librarians to answer these question by having

them describe what a 21st century library and its spaces should look like now and into the

foreseeable future. However, the tacit programmatic answers are usually not as clear and straight

forward as are the answers to the explicit financial and architectural questions. For example, ask

constituents of the research library-students, faculty, alumni-what they think the library should

be, and you are likely to get multiple and conflicting answers today. In the Thompson Library

Renovation project, all constituent groups were involved from the beginning, participating in

surveys, focus groups, town meetings, and individual sessions during the feasibility study and the

design phase. Here are some representative examples of their opinions and recommendations:

Books (again, things you can hold in your hands, not a text that is one click away)

are highly underrated in our society . . . Our society's rampant and depressing

anti-intellectualism . . . Save the books please. - Graduate student, 2004.

Actually it has been years since I needed a physical library. I check out books on-

line and they come to my office. I download journal articles over the Internet. My

main reason for visiting the library now is to visit the coffee shop. - Faculty

member, 2004.

Keep the stacks. - Alumnus, 2003.

Get rid of the stacks-it is one of the creepiest places I have ever been. -

Anonymous, 2003.

There should be group study rooms. I often need to work with my classmates in

group projects. - Undergraduate, 2002.

As graduate students spend a large part of their time in the library, it is only fair

that they have access to quiet, accessible work spaces. - Graduate student, 2003.

Why can't you just leave the library alone? All anyone at OSU cares about

anymore is 'Preparing for the future! Making things modern!' If I would have

known that my four years at OSU would have been nothing but construction sites

around campus. I would have chosen another university.-Undergraduate, 2004.7

Clearly there is not consensus among constituents about the future of the research library.

The library today is in a state of transition, largely brought on by the rapid advance of networked

digital information technology. In a transition period, constituents, as well as librarians, are often

inconsistent and confused about future directions. OCLC's recent study Perceptions of Libraries

and Information Resources points this out very well. While students and the general public are

turning increasingly to networked digital information services for their information needs, these

same constituents still associate "library" with "books" and have what might be called an

"nostalgic" perception of the library. According to Cathy De Rosa, one of the principal

contributors to the OCLC report, "Libraries' mindshare in this new self-service e-resource

environment is also clear: behind the newer entrants. Libraries' continued importance as trusted

information provider is evident and, overall, users have positive, if outdated, views of the

'Library.' "8

I heard a similar view expressed by a library director who designed and opened a

new research library in the 1990s. When asked for his advice about getting faculty involvement

in design planning, the director's comment was that it is critical to get such input but I should

keep in mind that faculty are likely to design the library they fondly remember using as graduate

students several decades in the past.

ENVISIONING: THE BEST SPACE AND PROGRAMMATIC LIBRARY DESIGN FOR

TODAY'S AND TOMORROW'S STUDENTS AND FACULTY

How do librarians make sense of this confusing and sometimes contradictory input from

user constituencies about the 21st century library? After several years of intensive study that

involved considerable constituent input, usage trend data, professional reading, travel to see new

library space, and discussions with library consultants and architects, the Thompson Library

Renovation project staff gradually found and settled on two basic programmatic themes that

helped organize and give meaning to all the information and design ideas they were gathering.

These two basic themes were:

1. new practices in collection and content management, and

2. creating a "learning" organization and "learning" spaces in the library.

These two themes lead us to interesting programmatic reorganization and redeployment

of collections, services, and staff in the Thompson Library and in the whole library system, and

they helped us inform the work of our architects in designing space that we think is beautiful,

functional, and flexible for today's and tomorrow's academic library user.

NEW PRACTICES IN COLLECTION AND CONTENT MANAGEMENT

The "collection" has been a defining element of a research library program. In several

earlier articles I have described in some detail the changing nature of collection's work in the

research library, arguing that we must see this element of our responsibility as having evolved

from collection development, to collection management, to what today should be, knowledge or

content management.9 For the purposes of this paper, I will limit my remarks to some of the

elements of knowledge or content management that are most directly affecting space design is-

sues today.

It is really only now, at the beginning of the 21st century, that research librarians can look

at multiple motivations for building new space or redesigning old library space. Because until

only recently, accommodating growing print collections was what research library facilities were

pretty much single-mindedly about. Today that situation is changing with new storage options

for print material, consortial collection building, and the new demands on librarians for digital

content management and services.

Certainly print as a medium for scholarship has not gone away, and doesn't appear to be

going away in the near future. Large research libraries in the Association of Research Libraries

have steadily added a hundred thousand or more new print volumes to their collections each

year.10

What is changing is how these print volumes are stored and shared. By 2000, the

Thompson Library facility at Ohio State, like many other central research library facilities, was

overcrowded with book stacks, and the stacks themselves were overcrowded with too many

volumes. The Thompson Library was estimated at its peak of overcrowding to hold more than

two and half million print volumes, but at the expense of reader seating and proper preservation

shelving (Figure 12).

The OSU library system has been fortunate to be part of the OhioLINK consortium. One

important component of this state-wide library cooperative is a system of five regional library

depository facilities, where lesser used material can be stored and serviced efficiently in high

density, preservation quality space. One of these depositories is located in central Ohio on the

edge of the OSU campus and managed by the OSU Libraries (see Figure 1). Module two of the

central Ohio book depository came on line in 2002 (Figure 13), and the OSU librarians began an

aggressive program of transferring appropriate material from its central campus libraries,

particularly from the Thompson Library, to the book depository.

Over the last decade, the collection size in the Thompson Library has been reduced from

over two million volumes to approximately one and half million volumes. This transfer of

collections, which became more aggressive in the last four years, was done to prepare for the

renovation of the Thompson Library, but for other important reasons as well: to create more

reader and information technology service space in the central campus libraries and to better

preserve collections through better storage. Overcrowding does not serve collections or users

well.

FIGURE 12. Book Stacks in Thompson Library, 2001

Used with permission.

FIGURE 13. High Density, Preservation Storage in the Book Depository

Used with permission.

The book depository program gives collection managers the useful option of keeping core,

frequently-used collections close to users in proper storage space configurations in central

campus library facilities, while storing lesser-used material more efficiently off campus but

serviceably through the online catalog and quick document delivery service. The book

depository option played a critical role in our space allocation decisions for collection storage,

helping us create a proper balance with other programmatic needs in the new design of the

Thompson Library.

Consortial arrangements and effective document delivery services, along with new

storage options, have become key factors in content management at Ohio State both for print and

digital collections. Everything does not have to be physically in a campus library or in an institu-

tion's book depository anymore to be part of one's collection, although this is still a controversial

view for some constituents and librarians. For academic libraries in Ohio, OhioLINK enables its

eighty-eight members to share a common library automation and request system, making

discovery, request, and delivery of print material from any of its locations simple, quick, and

inexpensive. Patrons do direct requests, and resource sharing has steadily increased since 1994

(Figure 14).11

Because resource sharing among OhioLINK libraries is made so easy and quick, all types

of constituents participate, even undergraduates who often need library material at the last

minute. Undergraduates account for almost 40% of the borrowing through OhioLINK (Figure

15).

Resource sharing is really an essential component of the content management program at Ohio

State University. Our own commitment to library cooperation in collection management

combined with our membership in OhioLINK makes us a standout among the Association of

Research Libraries when it comes to resource sharing, with our lending and borrowing statistics

much above the average ARL transaction level (Figure 16).

With a new emphasis on knowledge or content management, the OSU Libraries has

expanded its responsibilities to collect and preserve more types and formats of academic

information. The Libraries has a digital repository program called the Knowledge Bank and is

currently working on a faculty expertise system called OSU Pro.12

The space implications for a

knowledge management program include, in our case, more space to house partnership

organizations, more office space for information technology staff, more information technology

rich public learning spaces, and a more robust power and data infrastructure throughout our

facilities.

FIGURE 14. OhioLINK Patron Borrowing, 1994-2003 Filled Online Patron Borrowing Requests

FIGURE 15. OhioLINK Borrowing by Patron Type, 1994-2003 Online Patron Borrowing by Patron Type

FIGURE 16. OSU and ARL Interlibrary Lending/Borrowing Statistics, 1994-2003

In the renovation of the Thompson Library, for example, we decided to bring the senior

administrations of both the University Libraries and the Chief Information Officer together in a

common office suite in this facility, since we do so much work together on knowledge and

content management services.

CREATING A LEARNING ORGANIZA TION AND NEW LEARNING SPACES

Managing our collections and more types of content in new ways and integrating these

information resources with new space design opportunities allows us to create some exciting

learning spaces in our library facilities. By limiting the size and growth of print collection

storage in our campus libraries, we have more space for the amount and variety of public seating,

services, and programs offered in our facilities around the core information resources that

remain. In the renovated Thompson Library, for instance, there will be more space, front and

center, for special collections services, better user and browsing space in the open stacks, and

more opportunities for exhibits, displays, lectures, and seminars that make good use of the

Libraries' print and digital resources. Already our design planning for the Thompson Library has

led us to consider and offer more programs in our facilities that support learning and attract more

students and faculty to library resources and services. We have in the last few years added a cafe

to the library and initiated a leisure reading collection, a weekly read aloud program, a large-

course textbook open reserve, displays of student research projects, more student education

programs, more academic lectures, and an expanded document delivery program called Article

Express.13

All this is really part of an attempt to create more responsive learning space and programs

in our library facilities. In our planning and design work for the Thompson Library Renovation,

we were very influenced by the recent work of Scott Bennet on library space design. We found

his study Libraries Designed for Learning extremely helpful, and we came to use him as a

library consultant to our renovation project. Bennet's basic contention is that in the 1990s library

space design tended to look back rather than forward. Bennet observes that while in the 1990s

"higher education saw transformative changes in student learning, faculty teaching methods, and

information technology," library space designs "were not fundamentally different in concept

from those designed in the 1960s."14

Certainly information technology has changed, and while

one may question how "transformational" teaching and learning in higher education really has

been in the last twenty years, there are at least signs of and more experimentation with new

active learning processes by faculty and students.

In our space design planning at Ohio State, we rallied around three activities in creating

new learning space. First, we came to place a greater emphasis on more space for and more

attention to the social learning needs of students. This meant a cafe in the library, better

amenities and upkeep, more exhibit and display space for student use, much more collaborative

spaces for group work, but also the need for traditional quiet study spaces. For our particular

renovation project in Thompson Library, we are doubling the number of user seats in the facility,

going from about one to two thousand seats, and we are reducing the overall amount of space

allocated to collection storage.

Second, we were attracted to the wave of Information or Learning Commons being

created in academic libraries in the last five years. These information commons are technology

rich, often with one-stop help for reference or technology assistance that is managed as a

partnership between the library and information technology units on campus. Our project team

visited a good number of these new Information Commons, and we were most impressed with

the installation at Georgia Institute of Technology Library in Atlanta.15

At Georgia Tech we

found an Information Commons that had become a real and very popular center for learning

activity outside the classroom at that University. With a rich array of productivity and

multimedia software, the Commons at Georgia Tech receives heavy use during its 24 X 7

schedule. Most importantly, I think, for its success as a real learning space, is its true partnership

of library and information technology staff with well trained and motivated student assistant

help.

And third and finally, we rallied around developing library staff commitment to learning

as a key value in our organization. We created a library working group, the OSU Libraries

Learning Group, to look at how best we should deploy our staff and space for learning in the

future.16

This task force issued a very influential report in 2004 that among other things

recommended:

Setting learning as a priority in the Libraries: learning over service approaches.

Experimentation in use of space: design decisions be made in ways that maximize

possibilities for future change.

Collaboration with other campus agencies.

Bringing students, faculty, and librarians together in the library: shift in behavior

toward welcoming contact with students in the library.

After five years of intense and serious space design planning, I can look back now and

summarize the concepts and programmatic thrusts that I think most influenced or gave meaning

to our work. The following five concepts helped us work with our constituents, funders, and

architects to design library space that we hope will be beautiful, functional, flexible, and higher

responsive to the needs of students and faculty in the 21st century.

1. An emphasis on content management, learning, and outreach responsibilities of

research librarians, staff, and student assistants: new assignments and

accountability, redeployment of personnel, more collaborative team efforts.

2. Consolidation of collections and service points: in our Thompson Library Project

we are consolidating humanities and social sciences collections, a number of

special collections areas, and consolidating and reducing the number of reference

and circulation service points.

3. More collaboration with other libraries and other campus agencies.

4. Primacy of public space in library facilities that is varied, flexible, and

information technology rich.

5. Creating flexible "learning space" that brings students, faculty, librarians, and

information resources and services together for active learning.

LIBRARY ARCHITECTURE FOR BEAUTIFUL, FUNCTIONAL, AND FLEXIBLE SPACE

I will end as it should end with the architecture itself, in this case the architectural plans

for the transformed William Oxley Thompson Memorial Library. After more than five years of

planning and design, the remaking of the central library at Ohio State Universtiy is about to be-

gin. Reconstruction will take three years, and during that time period the building will be

completely vacated with all collections, staff, and services relocated to other facilities on

campus. (The logistics of a one-phase, massive library renovation project are for another story to

tell.) In 2009, I believe we will move back into a truly beautiful, functional, and flexible research

library for the 21st century. The eastern facade of the building will retain and improve its

original Renaissance Revival style (Figure 17). Two small wings added in the 1950s will be

removed, and windows will be added and enlarged on the original building and stacks tower.

The western facade of the building will change dramatically (Figure 18). The 1977

addition to the west of the stacks tower will be torn down, and a new, more complementary

addition will be built. The new western facade will present a second "front" for the facility,

pedestrian friendly, with a new entrance from the west, a new cafe-, and a dramatic reading room

and roof garden on this side of the building.

Two atria with large sky lights will be constructed on either side of the central stacks

tower, and the first six levels of the stacks tower will be open to the atria, creating a much more

unified, open, and light filled building (Figures 19 and 20).

The stacks tower will house open, general collections in the humanities and social

sciences and below ground will be compact closed stack storage for special collections material.

The first five levels of the building will house special collections services, general library

services, visible and easy to find staff offices, and a great variety of public spaces that will

include information commons, quiet reading areas, group and instruction rooms, and expanded

exhibit and display space. Finally, there will be three special, inspiring reading rooms in the

library: the restored, traditional East Reading Room (Figure 21), a contemporary West Reading

Room (Figure 22) in the new west addition, and a spectacular Tower Reading Room at the top of

the stacks tower (Figure 23).

FIGURE 17. Eastern Facade of the Renovated Thompson Library

Used with permission.

FIGURE 18. Western Facade of the Renovated Thompson Library

Used with permission.

FIGURE 19. Cross-Section of the Renovated Thompson Library

Used with permission.

FIGURE 20. Atrium Space in the Renovated Thompson Library

Used with permission.

FIGURE 21. East Reading Room in the Renovated Thompson Library

Used with permission.

FIGURE 22. West Reading Room in the Renovated Thompson Library

Used with permission.

FIGURE 23. Tower Reading Room in the Renovated Thompson Library

Used with permission.

NOTES

1. Association of Research Libraries, ARL Statistics 2003-2004. Washington, DC: Association of Research

Libraries, 2005, p. 70.

2. The Ohio State University's new Knowlton School of Architecture Library received the Award of

Excellence in the American Institute of Architects and the American Library Association's 2005 Library Building

Award Program.

3. Charles St. John Chubb, "Architecture and the New Library," Ohio State University Monthly, vol. 4, no.

6. February 1913, pp. 5-8.

4. Scott Benett, Libraries Designed/or Learning, Washington DC: Council on Library and Information

Resources. 2003, p. 5.

5. Ohio State University, Library Task Force Report, June 9, 1998.

6. Chris Perry. The Kirwan Years, 1998-2002, Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 2006. p.

81.

7. User comments gathered over a five-year period, 2000 to 2005, as part of The Ohio State University

Thompson Library Renovation Project.

8. OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources, Dublin,

Ohio: OCLC, 2005, p. ix.

9. Joseph J. Branin, "Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries: Building the Knowledge Bank at the

Ohio State University," Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 39, No.4, 2003, pp. 41-56. See also Joseph J.

Branin, France Groen, and Suzanne Thorin, "The Changing Nature of Collection Management in Research

Libraries," Library Resources & Technical Services 44, January 2000, pp. 23-33.

10. ARL Statistics 2003-2004. p. 71.

1 1. OhioLINK Ohio Library and Information Network, Snapshot 2005: Connecting Ohio Higher

Education to the World of Information, Columbus, Ohio: OhioLINK, 2005.

12. The Ohio State University Libraries' Knowledge Bank <https://kb.osu.edu/ dspace/index.jsp> and OSU

Pro <https://pro.osu.edu/>.

13. The Ohio State University Libraries' Article Express

<https://www.illiad.osu.edu/illiad/osu/ArticleExpressLogon.html>.

14. Scott Bennel. Libraries Designed for Learning, p. 2.

15. Georgia Institute of Technology, Library and Information Center, Library West Commons

<http://www.atlantahighered.org/members/git_library.asp> Tech Information Commons.

16. Scott Bennet, Report of/lie OSU Libraries Learning Group, Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State

University Libraries, 2004 <https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/ 202>.